randomjsa:Are these the same researchers who said we would have no snow by this point?

Are these the same researches who said there would be hundreds of thousands of climate change refuges by this point?

Are these the same researches who said there would be more frequent hurricanes? On that note, are these the same researches who run forward after every single solitary weather related disaster to proclaim that this is "climate change" even if its contradictory to what they said the last time?

I'm still laughing over the fact that lack of snowfall in a particular area of Canada was "climate change" but then massive snow fall just a few months later in a portion of the United States was "just weather, not climate".

Right. Statistically speaking - all scientists in fields relating to the environment agree :1). Climate change exists2). Humans are the primary cause of global warming3). This does not end well.

But because there isn't a consensus on the rate at which things end badly, obviously science is wrong?

CornerPocket:Farking Canuck: CornerPocket: Why do so many people still believe these computer models when every few months an announcement is made that they were wrong and that the world is actually heating up at a more rapid pace than originally predicted by the computer models? I have a strong hunch that these inaccuracies strongly correlate with the expiration of grant funding.

[i1103.photobucket.com image 280x280]

Mercury!, Getcha red-hot Mercury today! Right here! Great for the kids! Doubles as a pesticide! Ya can't get enough Mercury! Buy today! Crappy light, but expensive! It's win-win! For us, anyway! Mercury! All you suckers fine people just line up right over there for ya Mercury!

You know who tells us that mercury is bad for us? Scientists!! You know ... the same ones that say AGW is real.

Why do you feel mercury is bad if scientists are all lying scumbags scamming for their next grant?!?

Didn't say all of 'em were. Some are. Just like policemen, office workers, landscape architects, and every other segment of society. I knew a medicinal chemistry professor from India who was the smartest and most honest human being I ever met. Nevertheless, anybody who tells you that the research on climate change is refined enough to inform public policy today is just wrong or a very wishful thinker. Hence all the revisions. I don't deny the research is potentially useful, but it's in its infancy and has no real predictive power yet. Again, I believe this due to all the revisions that have consistently appeared. Yet the scam artists are trying to use this quite incomplete and impractical data to drive policy, frighten people for their own gain (because that's what such people always do), and make a few bucks in the process. Also, the toxicity of mercury is easily demonstrable and repeatable in any decently appointed pharmacology lab. Not so with climate change. That doesn't invalidate climate science, it just makes it much fuzzier (and less well developed) than toxicology. That Washington would allow such a product to hit the market makes me very uncomfortable. Ultimately, though, I think this will turn out like the common cold. Nobody's trying to find a cure for it anymore, like they used to. At least according to what I read. There is no way to predict effectively the level and direction of the antigenic shifts and drifts of the garden-variety rhinovirus over time. Climate change ultimately will turn out the same, IMHO. No collection of people, no matter how smart, are going to be able to predict the behavior of any system as complex as the Earth's climate. As Yogi Berra said: "Predictions are tricky, especially when they involve the future."

E=mc2. = science. Nuclear reactors in good repair behave exactly as predicted by relativity theory, at least to the limits of the uncertainty principle.

"I can tell you how hot the world will be in 100 years. Cause that's what my computer program says." = not so much.

Well played, though. I had to work on that response for much longer than ususal.

BTW, I love Canada. Especially PEI. My wife and I used to travel there every summer. Now, with the kids, it's a lot harder. Nicest people I ever met were the locals on that Island.

MD apointment in a little while, must go. Thanks everybody

Again...

Statistically speaking, all scientists (in fields related to the environment) agree:1). Climate change exists2). Humans are the primary cause of global warming.3). This is going to end badly.

But because they can't all agree as to what degree it will end badly, we shouldn't be talking about ways to mitigate our contributions to climate change?

That's absurd . The scientific community isn't calling on everyone to go vegan, ride bicycles, and shower less. They're saying we need to develop plans for green energy and consume less resources. These goals are relevant even if climate change doesn't pan out the way Model 132A predicts.

fortheloveofgod:Farking Canuck: randomjsa: Are these the same researchers who said we would have no snow by this point?

Nope. Worst case scenarios are not actually proposed as likely. If scientists do not list what is possible and the unlikely extreme actually happens, Luddites like yourself get all pitchforky. See recent events in Italy.

Predictions are made with ranges usually with Gaussian distributions. This means that the center of the range of the prediction and the extreme that you keep harping on and on about is actually highly unlikely.

So then we're not going to have extreme climate changes? Cool - we can all relax then!

Ummm ... is that how you read that?? No wonder there is such an anti-science movement in the USA. You apparently have absolutely no understanding of statistics used to report most phenomena.

"There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."― Isaac Asimov

Farking Canuck:fortheloveofgod: Farking Canuck: randomjsa: Are these the same researchers who said we would have no snow by this point?

Nope. Worst case scenarios are not actually proposed as likely. If scientists do not list what is possible and the unlikely extreme actually happens, Luddites like yourself get all pitchforky. See recent events in Italy.

Predictions are made with ranges usually with Gaussian distributions. This means that the center of the range of the prediction and the extreme that you keep harping on and on about is actually highly unlikely.

So then we're not going to have extreme climate changes? Cool - we can all relax then!

Ummm ... is that how you read that?? No wonder there is such an anti-science movement in the USA. You apparently have absolutely no understanding of statistics used to report most phenomena.

"There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."― Isaac Asimov

Your exact words were "...and the extreme that you keep harping on and on about is actually highly unlikely. (emphasis mine)

Your exact words were "...and the extreme that you keep harping on and on about is actually highly unlikely. (emphasis mine)

Fair enough ... I see where your confusion is now. You are conflating my use of 'extreme' referring to the edge of the statistical distribution with the use of extreme as an adjective to describe possible future climates.

Pretty much all of the range of predicted climate is bad except the extreme low end (there's that word again!!). At what point 'bad' climate change is considered 'extremely bad' depends on the person ... for some this may be when food prices rise 30% and for others it may be when large numbers of fatalities start. It is arbitrary but it is on that bell curve somewhere.

elchupacabra:Is there a Spentmiles/PocketNinja Tracker showing how many they fished in today? Looks like record-breaking territory.

I sure wished there was. Not sure if this was a record breaker for Spentmiles. I know some months back, I wished I could remember which thread, that one had to have been a record breaker for him. I was in awe.

3rotor:so where is all those H2O stealing aliens when you need them...

They were going to steal our water, but as they were pulling into the solar system the aliens noticed there were whole moons and dwarf planets made up mostly of ice (with the bonus of being entirely uncontaminated by potentially harmful lifeforms). While they were out there conducting a low-risk ice mining operation, the aliens grabbed a few asteroids containing more precious metals than have ever been mined in the entirety of human history, because they needed gold and stuff...for some reason.

randomjsa:Are these the same researchers who said we would have no snow by this point?

Are these the same researches who said there would be hundreds of thousands of climate change refuges by this point?

Are these the same researches who said there would be more frequent hurricanes? On that note, are these the same researches who run forward after every single solitary weather related disaster to proclaim that this is "climate change" even if its contradictory to what they said the last time?

Pocket Ninja:The problem with these "OMG the sky is falling" climate-change horror predictions is that nobody looks at the big pictures. Oceanographers just look at oceans, Geographers just look at earth. Weatherographers just look at their latest Super Doppler7000 and circle their arms around weather patterns......Do you think the Earth was always this same size? No! Thousands upon thousands of years ago it was much smaller. There was also a lot less water. Now we have lots of water, and lots of land. A few thousand years from now, there will be even more of both. It's the natural way of things. It's science. SCIENCE. But not science studied in isolation, subby. Science as part of the greater whole.

Pocket Ninja:The problem with these "OMG the sky is falling" climate-change horror predictions is that nobody looks at the big pictures. Oceanographers just look at oceans, Geographers just look at earth. Weatherographers just look at their latest Super Doppler7000 and circle their arms around weather patterns. And so on.

Shakin_Haitian:I just want to make one statement. Not everything fix a Gaussian curve.

Assuming you meant 'fits', you are correct. Although, in this situation, I would word it as: a Gaussian curve does not necessarily describe the probability of all outcomes of a prediction model.

That said, the Gaussian curve is the most likely distribution of predictions without some kind of limiting force shifting it ... which is why I am assuming it describes the situation in this case. Even if it is not completely accurate the actual curve is still likely close to the bell curve with a possible shift of the center line.

This still supports my suggestion that the extreme predictions (both at the high end and the low end) are unlikely to occur. That the average global temperature we get will be pretty close to the center of the predicted range. Which may still produce extreme climate shifts as per fortheloveofgod's comment but will not result in the most dire predictions which were 'worst case scenarios'.

tldr: The assertions by deniers that, since the absolute worst case scenarios didn't happen, then the predictions must all be wrong is simply bad logic not supported by the statistics. They were never suggested as likely ... just possible.

You might want to know that none of the sensationalist magazine covers you posted had anything to do with "global cooling." The upper left one was about a crunch in heating oil prices and the lower right one was about a drop in industrial production from a massive coal strike.

You wouldn't want to go around looking like you are just parroting some talking point and don't know what you're talking about.

TMYK

1974 Time Magazine articleJune 24, 1974 issue, Time presented an article titled Another Ice Age? that noted "the atmosphere has been growing gradually cooler for the past three decades"

An April 28, 1975 article in Newsweek magazine was titled "The Cooling World" it pointed to "ominous signs that the Earth's weather patterns have begun to change and pointed to a drop in temp1972 and 1974 National Science Board

The National Science Board's Patterns and Perspectives in Environmental Science report of 1972 discussed the cyclical behavior of climate, and the understanding at the time that the planet was entering a phase of cooling after a warm period. "Judging from the record of the past interglacial ages, the present time of high temperatures should be drawing to an end, to be followed by a long period of considerably colder temperatures leading into the next glacial age

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100114292/lying-che a ting-climate-scientists-caught-lying-cheating-again/

That's easy... The reason the Global Warming Policy Foundation (who made the graph forming the basis for that blog post you're posting) lies is because they are an astroturf organization with ties to Exxon / Mobil.

That is why they lie. You didn't know that?

Also... The covers you posted in your OP had nothing at all to do with global cooling, you obviously haven't even taken a cursory look into the crud you're posting, you just went out and googled something to make it look as if you knew what you were talking about and hadn't just rushed to post some copypasta you found on the internet. I pointed that out a lot more gently than you deserved.

An ice age, or more precisely, a glacial age, is a period of long-term reduction in the temperature of the Earth's surface and atmosphere, resulting in the presence or expansion of continental ice sheets, polar ice sheets and alpine glaciers. Within a long-term ice age, individual pulses of cold climate are termed "glacial periods" (or alternatively "glacials" or "glaciations" or colloquially as "ice age"), and intermittent warm periods are called "interglacials". Glaciologically, ice age implies the presence of extensive ice sheets in the northern and southern hemispheres.[1] By this definition, we are still in the ice age that began 2.6 million years ago at the start of the Pleistocene epoch, because the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets still exist....The next well-documented ice age, and probably the most severe of the last billion years, occurred from 850 to 630 million years ago (the Cryogenian period) and may have produced a Snowball Earth in which glacial ice sheets reached the equator,[32] possibly being ended by the accumulation of greenhouse gases such as CO2 produced by volcanoes. "The presence of ice on the continents and pack ice on the oceans would inhibit both silicate weathering and photosynthesis, which are the two major sinks for CO2 at present."[33] It has been suggested that the end of this ice age was responsible for the subsequent Ediacaran and Cambrian Explosion, though this model is recent and controversial....According to research published in Nature Geoscience, human emissions of carbon dioxide will defer the next ice age. Researchers used data on the Earth's orbit to find the historical warm interglacial period that looks most like the current one and from this have predicted that the next ice age would usually begin within 1,500 years. They go on to say that emissions have been so high that it will not.[38]

An ice age, or more precisely, a glacial age, is a period of long-term reduction in the temperature of the Earth's surface and atmosphere, resulting in the presence or expansion of continental ice sheets, polar ice sheets and alpine glaciers. Within a long-term ice age, individual pulses of cold climate are termed "glacial periods" (or alternatively "glacials" or "glaciations" or colloquially as "ice age"), and intermittent warm periods are called "interglacials". Glaciologically, ice age implies the presence of extensive ice sheets in the northern and southern hemispheres.[1] By this definition, we are still in the ice age that began 2.6 million years ago at the start of the Pleistocene epoch, because the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets still exist....The next well-documented ice age, and probably the most severe of the last billion years, occurred from 850 to 630 million years ago (the Cryogenian period) and may have produced a Snowball Earth in which glacial ice sheets reached the equator,[32] possibly being ended by the accumulation of greenhouse gases such as CO2 produced by volcanoes. "The presence of ice on the continents and pack ice on the oceans would inhibit both silicate weathering and photosynthesis, which are the two major sinks for CO2 at present."[33] It has been suggested that the end of this ice age was responsible for the subsequent Ediacaran and Cambrian Explosion, though this model is recent and controversial....According to research published in Nature Geoscience, human emissions of carbon dioxide will defer the next ice age. Researchers used data on the Earth's orbit to find the historical warm interglacial period that looks most like the current one and from this have predicted that the next ice age would usually begin within 1,500 years. They go on to say that emissions have been so high that it will not.[38]

Was there a point there, or were you just practicing cut and paste on your new computer?

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100114292/lying-che a ting-climate-scientists-caught-lying-cheating-again/

That's easy... The reason the Global Warming Policy Foundation (who made the graph forming the basis for that blog post you're posting) lies is because they are an astroturf organization with ties to Exxon / Mobil.

That is why they lie. You didn't know that?

Also... The covers you posted in your OP had nothing at all to do with global cooling, you obviously haven't even taken a cursory look into the crud you're posting, you just went out and googled something to make it look as if you knew what you were talking about and hadn't just rushed to post some copypasta you found on the internet. I pointed that out a lot more gently than you deserved.

I live in Texas and we just don't have as many sheep down here as most states. i have never spoken with someone that actually believes in Global Warming or that ExxonMobil controls the world. Can you tell me if you also believe

A) Republicans are at war against womenB) Big Bird would not survive without our tax dollarsC) Increasing taxes will actually help the economyD) Republicans are against Susan Rice because of her race or genderE) We are in the middle of Global Warming despite Record snowfall in La and Tx last yearF) All of the above

i could keep going but it just gets so funny and sad from a non sheep perspective.

clane:I live in Texas and we just don't have as many sheep down here as most states. i have never spoken with someone that actually believes in Global Warming or that ExxonMobil controls the world.

So what you are saying is that you feel that it is more likely that a world-wide conspiracy of scientists is more likely than multi-billion dollar corporations spreading dis-information to protect profits.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100114292/lying-che a ting-climate-scientists-caught-lying-cheating-again/

That's easy... The reason the Global Warming Policy Foundation (who made the graph forming the basis for that blog post you're posting) lies is because they are an astroturf organization with ties to Exxon / Mobil.

That is why they lie. You didn't know that?

Also... The covers you posted in your OP had nothing at all to do with global cooling, you obviously haven't even taken a cursory look into the crud you're posting, you just went out and googled something to make it look as if you knew what you were talking about and hadn't just rushed to post some copypasta you found on the internet. I pointed that out a lot more gently than you deserved.

I live in Texas and we just don't have as many sheep down here as most states. i have never spoken with someone that actually believes in Global Warming or that ExxonMobil controls the world. Can you tell me if you also believe

A) Republicans are at war against womenB) Big Bird would not survive without our tax dollarsC) Increasing taxes will actually help the economyD) Republicans are against Susan Rice because of her race or genderE) We are in the middle of Global Warming despite Record snowfall in La and Tx last yearF) All of the above

i could keep going but it just gets so funny and sad from a non sheep perspective.

Middle???I was told by your fearless leaders that this is just the beginning and we are looking forward to the Rapture point of no return where the oceans rise to Denver.This is not two things in one, this is bullchit.If you farking GOP sycophants don't dump the Christian Taliban that has hijacked the GOP, you are doomed to irrelevance.

Farking Canuck:clane: I live in Texas and we just don't have as many sheep down here as most states. i have never spoken with someone that actually believes in Global Warming or that ExxonMobil controls the world.

So what you are saying is that you feel that it is more likely that a world-wide conspiracy of scientists is more likely than multi-billion dollar corporations spreading dis-information to protect profits.

/and you call other people sheep

Again then why do scientists lie and lie again? And explain record snow fall during global warming... Wake up my god it is sad you ding bats will believe anything. It's okay though big Bird is safe now.

clane:Again then why do scientists lie and lie again? And explain record snow fall during global warming... Wake up my god it is sad you ding bats will believe anything. It's okay though big Bird is safe now.